And the most compelling strategy for delivering attractive long term returns came from value investing.

O'Shaughnessy analyzed a 3,000 stock universe over a period of 52 years.

For each year he identified the 50 most expensive and least expensive stocks by a variety of metrics. He then rebalanced that 50 stock portfolio each year, ensuring that only the most and least expensive stocks were retained.

If you had bought the 50 ‘growth' stocks with the highest price / earnings ratio, for example, after 52 years, a portfolio with an initial value of $10,000 would have grown to $793,558.

That sounds like a decent return. Until you compare it with a portfolio comprising the 50 stocks with the lowest price / earnings ratio.

This ‘value' portfolio, with an initial value of $10,000, would have grown to $8,189,182, over 10x as high.

If you had bought the 50 ‘growth' stocks with the highest price / book ratio, the results were even more extraordinary. Your initial $10,000 would have compounded, over time, to $267,147.

But if you had bought instead the 50 ‘value' stocks with the lowest price / book ratio, a portfolio with a starting value of $10,000 would have grown to be worth $22,004,691– over 80x as high.

A period of 52 years is a statistically meaningful period of time. The O'Shaughnessy study strongly suggests that over time, ‘value' completely trumps growth.

A bias to ‘value' may not work every year, but it's unlikely that any strategy will work without fail year after year. There will always be good years and bad years.